LEADER ARTICLE
India's Illusions: Just Another Face at the High Table

In the course of the not-very-meaningful no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha last month, deputy prime minister L K Advani cited Pokhran II as a turning point in the history of India, and argued that it was post-Pokhran II that India’s international standing had increased immensely.
The implication was, of course, that the credit for this success goes entirely to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
In foreign policy and defence matters, it is the BJP that calls the shots, and the alliance partners are but passive witnesses. Parliamentary affairs minister Sushma Swaraj, who held the floor for more than two hours during the debate, took up the theme song of success on the foreign policy front. She predictably referred to India finding a place at the high table of the big powers and she too connected it to Pokhran II. She referred in particular to the developed countries’ summit in Evian, France, but at the table were also Algeria, Brazil, China, Egypt, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and South Africa.
Politicians have a legitimate right to claim successes and victories, however symbolic and insubstantial they may be. The problem arises when people who ought to know better and who should bring a note of sobriety to discussions, speak the language of politicians. When experts resort to rhetoric, there is a distinct danger of the country beginning to harbour grand illusions. And some of them, especially those close to the establishment, are indulging in abrasive triumphalism. They say India has now clearly emerged a world power, and point to Washington’s request for Indian troops to be deployed in Iraq as incontrovertible evidence of this.
They betray a certain anxiety as they urge the government to respond positively, and dispatch troops to Baghdad promptly. They believe that if this is not done, a golden opportunity would be lost. Neither the Congress nor the experts who disagree with the government have done much to clear the air. All that the Congress president, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, could charge the government with was for giving up the country’s independent foreign policy.
Prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had no trouble in rebutting the charge by pointing to the Parliament resolution criticising the American invasion of Iraq, and India’s refusal to send troops to Baghdad. The anti-government critics have not been helpful either. As most of them subscribe to some form of anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-American ideology, their opposition is blinkered, and they fail to convince people because they are not objective and dispassionate.
Consequently, the myths of India’s realpolitik in foreign affairs reign supreme. Pokhran II is one of them. It was rather naive on the part of Mr Advani and Ms Swaraj to have harped on the extraordinary significance of Pokhran II, and for arguing that it was the reason for India’s status as the new power on the block. This does not mean that India should not have conducted the tests and declared its nuclear weapon capability. Pokhran II is part of India’s defence preparedness, and it should remain a natural component of our defence strategy. Nothing more. It is only rogue states like Pakistan and North Korea that flaunt their nuclear weapon capability to assert their importance and strength in international affairs, and try to use it as a bargaining counter.
India is a mature democracy which does not, in any way, depend on its nuclear arsenal to be recognised by the world. In the post-Cold War world, the western powers are paying greater attention to India because they have understood the importance of India as a truly democratic, non-communist country that has survived the battles of the ideological blocs. The Americans and Europeans have now realised that free trade can succeed only in democratic countries.
Hence the belated recognition of India’s importance. It has nothing to do with the primitive nuclear weaponry that India can produce after the Pokhran II tests. The other emerging myth is the request for Indian troops to be sent to Iraq. Surprisingly, hard-nosed military analysts seem to feel that it is a recognition of India’s potential to play the role of a big power in West Asia. There is something deceptive about the logic. The presence of Indian troops in Baghdad does not serve the country’s strategic interests. India will never be allowed to gain even partial control of the oil supplies in the region. That will always remain a western preserve.
If there is a place where Indian troops need to be sent, it is to Afghanistan. The gradual resurgence of the Taliban on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border spells renewed trouble in Jammu and Kashmir as well as for the nascent democratic government in Kabul. One effective way of engaging militancy in the Valley is to fight the Taliban along with the Afghans on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
But the Americans will never agree to an Indian presence in Kabul. Washington will not want to displease Islamabad, and allow a tilt in the balance of power in South Asia in India’s favour. There is something wrong with a situation when India’s big power status is not recognised in its neighbourhood. The moral: The trappings of power should not be taken as the substance of power.